My new law proposal (which will, of course, as any law does, piss off Republicans... but that is why I like to propose new laws... because it pushes their buttons) is that if a stock offering cannot be made to US investors, then it cannot be made at all for any US based company.
Clearly GS is just trying to pressure Congress to remove all laws, so they can proceed to screw everyone. The counter action is to boycott GS and FB.
Oh, and that law would never pass, of course. But it's always fun to push buttons on Republicans and get them to react.
How is it that it costs you nothing? Are you pirating it?
If you are using H.264 legally, you ARE paying for its licensing, even if indirectly, as part of the costs of the products you pay for that include it.
People like me that want to run computers more safely with 100% locally compiled source code are being locked out by the MPEG-LA. If they would allow me to use MPEG-LA legally based on freely downloaded source I compile, I would use it. Being as they do not allow that, I won't use it.
There is an alternative. If certain hardware makers (CPU or GPU or other) would make H.264 encoders/decoders in hardware, with an open interface to allow any software to use that hardware, that would work for me (then I'd be paying for H.264 licensing via my hardware purchase).
Until then, WebM, Dirac, OGG/Theora/Vorbis, FLAC, and such for my video and audio needs. If they (MPEG-LA) don't want me (someone who compiles their own source code) as a user, then I guess I won't be.
We can already do single password signons, without delegating our identity to provider like OpenID does, while not sharing the same password between multiple providers. A keyring feature in the browser, with one master password, is all it really takes. When the user accesses a site they have signed up for, the site is recognized as such based on the list in the keyring, and the credentials can then be exchanged. By creating different credentials for each site to visit, that won't be a means for the site operators to correlate identities for cross tracking purposes. Sites, like your bank, will, of course, need to establish some connection between your internet credentials and your account, at some point (set up a first time password when you first sign up for an account).
The one exception I can see are for sites that want to be certain the same person is not signing up for two or more accounts. Most sites don't need this. But it might be good to have if they start doing online voting (which, of course, will eventually undergo some extreme, but not necessarily apparent, attacks). For that kind of thing, you get the credentials by another means where they only give you one set (at a time), and deposit them in the keyring, possibly flagged for additional security prompts to make use of.
Only on your own LAN, without a PXE helper to redirect traffic elsewhere. Presumable a "cloud boot" will go directly to the internet and boot from there. I just wonder if it will be encrypted (assuming you trust the place it boots from).
It would be nice to have some stable HPI, too. Everything that the old hardware can do, the old driver for the old hardware should be able to do with the new hardware. So with no change at all to the driver, everything that worked with the old hardware shall work with the new hardware, faster where applicable.
New features are then the issue. If the hardware interface is designed in a flexible way, then the low level drivers should not need to care at all about what is going on with the device. They should, instead, be working entirely and exclusively on making sure all the operation requests and responses get properly shuttled back and forward, say in the form of messages. That way, to use some new feature in the hardware, you only need to add on the component that understands that new feature. And with a message passing interface to hardware, that can easily never need to involve the kernel.
They could have wireless networks that are 10, or even 100, times greater capacity than they have now. But they don't only because of a "collective" decision to do so. And the phone companies like it that way. An artificial shortage of supply, while generating and driving a higher demand, means they can raise prices and profit.
Being "authorized" has nothing to do with being "qualified".
One likely problem with repairs is they (much like those customer DISservice people we call on the phones) follow scripts. That is, if a certain problem is presented, a certain "solution" must be applied (despite the fact that many problems can have a variety of causes).
I had a Dell laptop at work periodically fail to light the screen up. They send a tech out with a replacement LCD. He replaces it and it lights up. But it also has some discoloration streaks in it. The tech wasn't even happy with that, so he calls someone and orders another LCD. He's back 3 days later to try again, and still no joy as this one won't even light up. Next week yet another LCD and it won't stay lit.
Finally he gets an "idea", mentioning that it isn't in their "procedures". He calls and orders a different part. He brings that in after a couple days. It's a voltage converter feeding power to the display. While replacing that part, we both see the previous one had some serious burn marks on it, which could not be seen until removed. Now the screen lights up and stays lit just fine. The LCD modules were probably all fine, and just this power unit was at fault.
I asked him where all those LCD modules went. "We trash them because they cannot be repaired".
You mean there ARE banks which were are required to do business with (that PayPal is not one of)? And all regulated banks are required to provide every possible service (that PayPal does not provide all of because they are not one of those banks)? I guess maybe more banks should having funds insured by the government. That way they can get out of actually having to do things right, and be on a better footing to provide alternatives to PayPal.
The right to free speech gives you the right to publish your own newspaper, for example. In modern terms, it gives you the right to have your own website. What that right does not do is extend to the taking of property belonging to others to achieve the free speech. You cannot, for example, steal, or demand free usage of, my printing press. Likewise, you cannot demand free use of my web site to do your free speech.
Free speech is not free beer.
So how does this apply to email? Simple. Email functions by using the resources of BOTH the sender and recipient. And it uses more resources of the recipient than the of the sender. The speech part of the spam is what is in question. The real issue is theft of resources belonging to a recipient that did not want to share those resources for this communication.
Basically, the point that needs to get across to people wanting to do marketing is to pay for all the resources used to carry out that marketing. Paying web sites for ad impressions, or paying TV stations for air time, or paying newspapers for ad space, is how this is done. We have tolerated things like postal ads because the cost for the recipient is not that much, because the cost for the sender, being high, manages to limit the amounts. Telephone advertising (e.g. telemarketing), changes that to make it more costly to the recipient. And with the internet, it gets even worse, especially for email, due to the extreme automation spammers can do.
We SHOULD be able to use existing laws against spam. The trouble with that is, it is still hard for judges (and Congress people) to understand enough of the technology to understand that email spam is just as much a theft of resources as is a distributed denial of service attack. Spam is a denial of service. It should be treated as such. The content (the speech part), is immaterial.
If all the slashdotters each go register ONE domain name, they will have to resort to using those robosigners from the mortgage department to send a cease and desist letter to all of them.
Visa already did this to Magnatune and covered it up with excuses. Every business gets fraudulent charges coming through. But Magnatune was treated differently than most.
I intentionally used the word "real" to exclude tunnel brokers. Unless they can use that IPv6 address outside the context of a tunnel, then it isn't real.
In IPv6, there are 50,041,524,547,196,832,862,260,971,681 addresses for each person alive today.
While the vast majority of them can't even get a single real one of those addresses, much less the 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 of them each is supposed to get.
Oh wow... he signed it as "Special Agent". I wondered where all the special people went. I wonder if he knows the "Special" agent that bungled the telco seizure from last year in Dallas that Slashdot just recently duped on us.
So, the fact that it happened last year justifies the FBI ignorance of shutting down and entire colocation facility and seizing the equipment of 300 some business just because it was "interconnected" (everything there had internet access... duh)?
Earn 15% commissions when you collect on our debt accounts. We send you the accounts and contact info. You do the collection calls. Payments are sent directly to you. You take 15% out and send the remainder to us and we send you more accounts.
OK, that's the pitch. The sting should be obvious to slashdotters at this point. The lure would be a few small accounts that are easy to collect on and the victim actually gets the 15%. They get an email saying "wow, I'm impressed... we'll be sending you some better accounts". You know what that means.
Actually, it is the reverse. The foreigner is seeking the victim to be a money collector, instead of a money distributor. E.g. the money comes FROM someone else and is sent TO the person doing the email exchange.
Slashdot Mirror
My new law proposal (which will, of course, as any law does, piss off Republicans ... but that is why I like to propose new laws ... because it pushes their buttons) is that if a stock offering cannot be made to US investors, then it cannot be made at all for any US based company.
Clearly GS is just trying to pressure Congress to remove all laws, so they can proceed to screw everyone. The counter action is to boycott GS and FB.
Oh, and that law would never pass, of course. But it's always fun to push buttons on Republicans and get them to react.
How is it that it costs you nothing? Are you pirating it?
If you are using H.264 legally, you ARE paying for its licensing, even if indirectly, as part of the costs of the products you pay for that include it.
People like me that want to run computers more safely with 100% locally compiled source code are being locked out by the MPEG-LA. If they would allow me to use MPEG-LA legally based on freely downloaded source I compile, I would use it. Being as they do not allow that, I won't use it.
There is an alternative. If certain hardware makers (CPU or GPU or other) would make H.264 encoders/decoders in hardware, with an open interface to allow any software to use that hardware, that would work for me (then I'd be paying for H.264 licensing via my hardware purchase).
Until then, WebM, Dirac, OGG/Theora/Vorbis, FLAC, and such for my video and audio needs. If they (MPEG-LA) don't want me (someone who compiles their own source code) as a user, then I guess I won't be.
We can already do single password signons, without delegating our identity to provider like OpenID does, while not sharing the same password between multiple providers. A keyring feature in the browser, with one master password, is all it really takes. When the user accesses a site they have signed up for, the site is recognized as such based on the list in the keyring, and the credentials can then be exchanged. By creating different credentials for each site to visit, that won't be a means for the site operators to correlate identities for cross tracking purposes. Sites, like your bank, will, of course, need to establish some connection between your internet credentials and your account, at some point (set up a first time password when you first sign up for an account).
The one exception I can see are for sites that want to be certain the same person is not signing up for two or more accounts. Most sites don't need this. But it might be good to have if they start doing online voting (which, of course, will eventually undergo some extreme, but not necessarily apparent, attacks). For that kind of thing, you get the credentials by another means where they only give you one set (at a time), and deposit them in the keyring, possibly flagged for additional security prompts to make use of.
Only on your own LAN, without a PXE helper to redirect traffic elsewhere. Presumable a "cloud boot" will go directly to the internet and boot from there. I just wonder if it will be encrypted (assuming you trust the place it boots from).
... it will be called borgboot.
It would be nice to have some stable HPI, too. Everything that the old hardware can do, the old driver for the old hardware should be able to do with the new hardware. So with no change at all to the driver, everything that worked with the old hardware shall work with the new hardware, faster where applicable.
New features are then the issue. If the hardware interface is designed in a flexible way, then the low level drivers should not need to care at all about what is going on with the device. They should, instead, be working entirely and exclusively on making sure all the operation requests and responses get properly shuttled back and forward, say in the form of messages. That way, to use some new feature in the hardware, you only need to add on the component that understands that new feature. And with a message passing interface to hardware, that can easily never need to involve the kernel.
They could have wireless networks that are 10, or even 100, times greater capacity than they have now. But they don't only because of a "collective" decision to do so. And the phone companies like it that way. An artificial shortage of supply, while generating and driving a higher demand, means they can raise prices and profit.
Being "authorized" has nothing to do with being "qualified".
One likely problem with repairs is they (much like those customer DISservice people we call on the phones) follow scripts. That is, if a certain problem is presented, a certain "solution" must be applied (despite the fact that many problems can have a variety of causes).
I had a Dell laptop at work periodically fail to light the screen up. They send a tech out with a replacement LCD. He replaces it and it lights up. But it also has some discoloration streaks in it. The tech wasn't even happy with that, so he calls someone and orders another LCD. He's back 3 days later to try again, and still no joy as this one won't even light up. Next week yet another LCD and it won't stay lit.
Finally he gets an "idea", mentioning that it isn't in their "procedures". He calls and orders a different part. He brings that in after a couple days. It's a voltage converter feeding power to the display. While replacing that part, we both see the previous one had some serious burn marks on it, which could not be seen until removed. Now the screen lights up and stays lit just fine. The LCD modules were probably all fine, and just this power unit was at fault.
I asked him where all those LCD modules went. "We trash them because they cannot be repaired".
That depends. If using their brain would have killed them, then sure.
You mean there ARE banks which were are required to do business with (that PayPal is not one of)? And all regulated banks are required to provide every possible service (that PayPal does not provide all of because they are not one of those banks)? I guess maybe more banks should having funds insured by the government. That way they can get out of actually having to do things right, and be on a better footing to provide alternatives to PayPal.
... will be which one?
... sounds like it is moving SOUTH to me, not north by northwest.
The right to free speech gives you the right to publish your own newspaper, for example. In modern terms, it gives you the right to have your own website. What that right does not do is extend to the taking of property belonging to others to achieve the free speech. You cannot, for example, steal, or demand free usage of, my printing press. Likewise, you cannot demand free use of my web site to do your free speech.
Free speech is not free beer.
So how does this apply to email? Simple. Email functions by using the resources of BOTH the sender and recipient. And it uses more resources of the recipient than the of the sender. The speech part of the spam is what is in question. The real issue is theft of resources belonging to a recipient that did not want to share those resources for this communication.
Basically, the point that needs to get across to people wanting to do marketing is to pay for all the resources used to carry out that marketing. Paying web sites for ad impressions, or paying TV stations for air time, or paying newspapers for ad space, is how this is done. We have tolerated things like postal ads because the cost for the recipient is not that much, because the cost for the sender, being high, manages to limit the amounts. Telephone advertising (e.g. telemarketing), changes that to make it more costly to the recipient. And with the internet, it gets even worse, especially for email, due to the extreme automation spammers can do.
We SHOULD be able to use existing laws against spam. The trouble with that is, it is still hard for judges (and Congress people) to understand enough of the technology to understand that email spam is just as much a theft of resources as is a distributed denial of service attack. Spam is a denial of service. It should be treated as such. The content (the speech part), is immaterial.
... the Julian Assange action figure.
Ultiately, I think that the isest anser ill be to just rite hatever you need to rite ithout using any ide letters.
They want an e-mail address? That's so 1990's.
Crime is the only career path which the US government ensures all comers will get an education in, along with free room and board.
If all the slashdotters each go register ONE domain name, they will have to resort to using those robosigners from the mortgage department to send a cease and desist letter to all of them.
Visa already did this to Magnatune and covered it up with excuses. Every business gets fraudulent charges coming through. But Magnatune was treated differently than most.
I intentionally used the word "real" to exclude tunnel brokers. Unless they can use that IPv6 address outside the context of a tunnel, then it isn't real.
In IPv6, there are 50,041,524,547,196,832,862,260,971,681 addresses for each person alive today.
While the vast majority of them can't even get a single real one of those addresses, much less the 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 of them each is supposed to get.
Oh wow ... he signed it as "Special Agent". I wondered where all the special people went. I wonder if he knows the "Special" agent that bungled the telco seizure from last year in Dallas that Slashdot just recently duped on us.
So, the fact that it happened last year justifies the FBI ignorance of shutting down and entire colocation facility and seizing the equipment of 300 some business just because it was "interconnected" (everything there had internet access ... duh)?
Earn 15% commissions when you collect on our debt accounts. We send you the accounts and contact info. You do the collection calls. Payments are sent directly to you. You take 15% out and send the remainder to us and we send you more accounts. OK, that's the pitch. The sting should be obvious to slashdotters at this point. The lure would be a few small accounts that are easy to collect on and the victim actually gets the 15%. They get an email saying "wow, I'm impressed ... we'll be sending you some better accounts". You know what that means.
Actually, it is the reverse. The foreigner is seeking the victim to be a money collector, instead of a money distributor. E.g. the money comes FROM someone else and is sent TO the person doing the email exchange.